[RFC/RFT usb-next v1 5/6] usb: chipidea: do not set the "phy" field in struct usb_hcd

Martin Blumenstingl martin.blumenstingl at googlemail.com
Sun Feb 4 13:39:42 PST 2018

Hi Peter,

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:30 AM, Peter Chen <peter.chen at nxp.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Now that usb_add_hcd parses all generic PHYs anyways the code which
>> >> skips initialization of a single PHY will go away.
>> >> Remove the code which sets struct usb_hcd's phy field from the
>> >> chipidea driver as this field will go away soon.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Martin Blumenstingl
>> >> <martin.blumenstingl at googlemail.com>
>> >> ---
>> >>  drivers/usb/chipidea/host.c | 4 +---
>> >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/drivers/usb/chipidea/host.c
>> >> b/drivers/usb/chipidea/host.c index 19d60ed7e41f..fc324767cb0f 100644
>> >> --- a/drivers/usb/chipidea/host.c
>> >> +++ b/drivers/usb/chipidea/host.c
>> >> @@ -124,9 +124,7 @@ static int host_start(struct ci_hdrc *ci)
>> >>
>> >>       hcd->power_budget = ci->platdata->power_budget;
>> >>       hcd->tpl_support = ci->platdata->tpl_support;
>> >> -     if (ci->phy)
>> >> -             hcd->phy = ci->phy;
>> >> -     else
>> >> +     if (!ci->phy)
>> >>               hcd->usb_phy = ci->usb_phy;
>> >>
>> >
>> > The reason hcd->phy is initialized by chipidea core is we do not need
>> > HCD core to touch PHY, and PHY operation is shared for both device and host
>> mode for chipidea.
>> Chunfeng wanted me to drop the mtu3 patch because I forgot about device mode in
>> the mtu3 driver.
>> however, the chipidea driver seems to be different because I'm not dropping the
>> whole phy_{init,power_on,power_off,exit} code from it, but only a "flag" that tells the
>> HCD core to skip managing the USB PHY
>> > If I understand correct, your HCD core PHY wrapper patch set will do
>> > PHY operation if there is a "phy" node under controller's? If it is
>> > correct, you may supply one way to let the HCD core bypass phy operations for
>> some USB controllers, eg dual-role controllers.
>> > Thanks.
>> could you please explain why the HCD core should not manage the the PHYs when
>> the chipidea driver is used?
>> my understanding is that all phy_{init,power_on,power_off,exit}
>> operations are ref-counted internally in the PHY framework this means that if the
>> chipidea driver calls phy_{init,power_on} first then the same functions called from
>> within the HCD core are no-ops (except for the ref-counting) so I think it should not
>> change anything - however, I have no hardware to actually prove that.
> Martin, you design has no problem for most of cases, but some hardware needs special
> sequence for phy control. I will give an example below.
great to hear that this should work for most devices!

>> it would be great if you could explain the issue behind this (and thereby answer the
>> question: why we would not want the HCD core to manage the PHY states)!
> Eg, taking Qualcomm USB2 controller as an example, it even does not allow chipidea core
> to manage its power operation, see CI_HDRC_OVERRIDE_PHY_CONTROL at chipidea driver
> (usb/chipidea/core.c). Its phy_power_on is called after ehci controller reset has finished.
> (usb/chipidea/ci_hdrc_msm.c).
I see, thank you for explaining this!

what do you think about replacing the two following fields from struct usb_hcd:
  struct usb_phy *usb_phy;
  struct phy *phy;
   * do not manage the PHY state in the HCD core, instead let the driver handle
   * this (for example if the PHY can only be turned on after a specific event)
  bool skip_phy_initialization;

maybe I should also do this together with my other series which adds
the PHY wrapper to the HCD core (or even as a separate series, which
would be merged before this and the PHY wrapper series). what do you


More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list